2017년 6월 30일

김희석 서울대학교 환경대학원 박사과정

Typology, Patterns and Evolution of Gated Communities - the case of Seoul 폐쇄적 주거단지의 유형, 패턴과 진화 – 서울의 사례

Table of contents

• Introduction • Gated communities in Korea • Typology • Evolution • Patterns • Conclusions

2

INTRODUCTION Objective

• Background • Global: urban and social fragmentation (traffic, segregation…) • Contextual: spread of gated communities (GC) in the world vs increasing

exclusiveness of the existing GCs (apartment complexes) in Korea

• Need for a systematic diagnosis on gating • Moderating the increasing exclusivity of gated communities requires a

diagnosis on the reality of the phenomenon • Evidence based typology of GCs and analysis of the types are used for the

purpose.

• Research questions • What is the current level of residential gating in Seoul? • What process did the city go through to reach the current level of gating?

3

GC in KOREA Gated communities and Korean apt. complexes

• Gated communities • Clearly bounded residential estates which limit the access of non-residents

to privately controlled common spaces • Level of access control varies depending on communities

4

Club economy

Privately held

common space

Self-governance

GC in KOREA State-led development of gated communities

Self-sufficiency

Develop-ment

Design

Ownership

Governance

5

∙ State – Private contractor – Home buyers alliance ∙ Private funding of housing + infrastructure

∙ Residents’ council self-determines in-complex affairs independently under loose or no control.

∙ Based on Perry’s Neighbourhood Unit ∙ Apartment complex is a distinct entity separated by artery roads that promotes social separation based on income.

∙ Common space is collectively owned by residents. ∙ Club economy: Local public goods are self-produced and exclusively consumed.

TYPOLOGY Audit and classification

• Audit of private apartment complexes by street view • Spatial extent: Seoul • Year of completion: 1999 – 2011 • Minimum size: 7,000m2 in complex area

• Criteria for typology: border permeability by wall and exclusionary devices (rising arm barrier, electric gates…)

Wall

Entrance 6

TYPOLOGY 1. Enclosed complex

• Walled • Entrances are open without physical exclusionary device but often with

signs warning parking by non-residents

• Through traffic is discouraged by retrofitting a cul-de-sac using barricades

• Being replaced by Car-restricted complex through retrofitting or redevelopment

TYPOLOGY 2. Car-restricted complex

• Walled + Controlled car access by rising arm barrier • Retrofitted from Enclosed complex or newly built with rising arm

barriers and guard post at entrances.

• Given a new function, main entrances of newly built car-restricted complexes stand out with arches and ornamentation compared to Enclosed complex.

• Most prevalent type

TYPOLOGY 3. All-restricted complex

• Walled + Controlled car access + Controlled pedestrian access • Retrofitting

• Electric gates are not allowed in design stage but free for residents to add them in Car-restricted complexes

• 4 years take for a Car-restricted complex to add gates on average.

• Three sub-types

No trespassing sign (psychological)

Partially open (psychological + physical)

Fully closed (physical)

TYPOLOGY 4. Elevated complex

• Walled + Controlled car & pedestrian access by height • Built over podiums accommodating shops and parking lots • Only residents can access terraced garden through reserved elevator • Designed full security community and most exclusive

Source: www.daelim-apt.co.kr

TYPOLOGY 5. Demarcated complex

• No fence or low bush at boundary + Controlled car access • Only found in planned new towns • Represent anti-gating efforts of the planning authority

Five elements to reject in the design guideline of Eunpyeong New Town

Source: www.seoulsolution.kr Wall Level gap Retaining wall Electric poll Signboard

Type Percentage Edge Exclusionary devices at entrance

Mode of production

Demarcated 1.6% Low bush Rising arm barrier Public design

Enclosed 15.6% Wall None Private design

Car-restricted

76.4% Wall Rising arm barrier Private retrofit or private design

All-restricted

4.3% Wall RAB + electric gate Private retrofit

Elevated

2.1% Level difference RAB + reserved elev. Private design

12

E V O L U T I O N

EVOLUTION Stock change

• Continued decline of Enclosed complexes and increasing Car-restricted complexes until the public intervention for more open types in 2008

• Slow but steady increase of All-restricted and Elevated complexes

13

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

< Percentage of types (cumulative) among total stock by year of completion>

Demarcated Enclosed Car-restricted All-restricted Elevated

Car-restricted

Enclosed

All-restricted

Elevated

→

Completion of Eunpyeong New Town

Demarcated 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Enclosed Car-restricted All-restricted Elevated Demarcated

Average age (years) of each type

11.6 9.9 9.0 8.1 5.0

EVOLUTION Chronology of types

14

Enclosed

Car-restricted

All-restricted

Elevated

Demarcated

1960s 1990s Early 2000s Late 2000s

Excl

usiv

enes

s

Gov. input + new design : planning needs and podium

Gov. input : self-sufficiency

Gov. input : anti-gating

Social pressure : parking

Social pressure : crime, nuisance…

PATTERNS Income

• Income indicators • Income statistics by apartment complex unavailable • Land price and percentage of units

PATTERNS Mode of development

• New towns with more homogenous population developed under area level master plans are more open than independently developed infill developments.

• Explicitly gated communities (All-restricted & Elevated complexes) are found only in infill development.

16

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Infill

New town(brown field)

New town(green field)

Demarcated Enclosed Car-restricted All-restricted Elevated

New town (green field): 은평뉴타운, 보금자리주택… New town (brown field): 길음뉴타운, 미아뉴타운… Pedestrian network planning of Jangwi New Town

Source: Seongbuk-gu

PATTERNS Estate size

• Large size discourages gates against pedestrians.

• Large AC forms an independent neighbourhood on a single superblock separated by barriers (roads, mountains…).

• More difficult to reach internal consensus • Larger impact on the outside (detour and

media attention)

• Large complexes wishing fortification adopt no trespassing signs instead of electric gates.

• Elevated complexes are smaller due to the physical limit imposed on podium size.

17 Source: Park et al (2009)

< Estate size by type (m2) >

14,938

20,641

19,241

48,503

24,849

25,619

25,499

24,750

Elevated

All-restrictedfully closed gates

All-restrictedpartially open gates

All-restrictedno trespassing signs

Car-restricted

Enclosed

Demarcated

Average

PATTERNS Contagion of gates in apt. complex cluster

• Once gates appear in a complex belonging to apartment complex cluster, they spread to the whole cluster through learning and copying.

18

PATTERNS Location

• Concentration of All-restricted complexes in the better-off area of South-East Seoul

• Lack of Enclosed complexes in the South-East

• Demarcated complexes in the periphery

• Elevated complexes in transport hubs in or near job centres

• Car-restricted complexes are evenly distributed

19

CONCLUSIONS

• Evolution • Self-sufficiency of apartment complexes was instituted by the government

but they have evolved toward more exclusivity by residents through retrofitting.

• Objects of control at apartment complex borders have been extended from cars to pedestrians.

• Apartment complexes controlling non-resident pedestrians (All-restricted complexes) are still a minority in Seoul (6.4%) but are steadily increasing, whose growth centre is located in the south-east.

• Patterns • Gating is not a phenomenon limited to the super rich. The richer the

residents, the more exclusive apartment complexes become for the whole income spectrum.

• Area wide master planning by the public reduces the exclusiveness. • Larger complexes do not have electric gates but they are more

independent and separated from the surroundings due to their size. • Increased exclusiveness of an apartment complex is led to the fortification

of whole cluster.

20

References

• Park, H. C., Jeong, S. H., Park, J. H., Lee, J. T. and Ki, M. J. (2009) Urban Form Study of Seoul. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute [In Korean]

• Raposo, R. (2006) ‘Gated communities, commodification and aestheticization: The case of the Lisbon metropolitan area’ in GeoJournal, vol. 66: 43-56

21

2017년 6월 30일��김희석�서울대학교 환경대학원 박사과정�Table of contentsINTRODUCTION�ObjectiveGC in KOREA�Gated communities and Korean apt. complexesGC in KOREA�State-led development of gated communitiesTYPOLOGY�Audit and classificationTYPOLOGY�1. Enclosed complexTYPOLOGY�2. Car-restricted complexTYPOLOGY�3. All-restricted complexTYPOLOGY�4. Elevated complexTYPOLOGY�5. Demarcated complex슬라이드 번호 12 EVOLUTION�Stock change EVOLUTION�Chronology of types PATTERNS�Income PATTERNS�Mode of developmentPATTERNS�Estate sizePATTERNS�Contagion of gates in apt. complex cluster PATTERNS�LocationCONCLUSIONS�References